● The label needs to be created on the GitHub repo itself. Since this is apache/airflow and I shouldn't make changes to the upstream repo directly, I'll note this for the user.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 12:11 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's what I changed in > .github/workflows/check-newsfragment-pr-number.yml: > > > > > > > > > 1. Added labeled and unlabeled to PR event types (line 27) — so the > workflow re-evaluates when labels are added or removed. > > > > 2. Added if condition on the job (line 39) — if: ${{ > !contains(github.event.pull_request.labels.*.name, 'skip newsfragment > check') }} skips the entire job when the PR has the skip newsfragment check > label. > > > > > > > To complete the setup, the label needs to be created on the GitHub repo: > > > > > > > > > > gh label create "skip newsfragment check" --repo apache/airflow > --description "Skip the newsfragment PR number check" --color "ededed" > > > > > > > > > You'll need appropriate permissions on the apache/airflow repo to create > the label. When the label is applied to a PR, the workflow job will be > skipped entirely (it will show as "Skipped" in the checks). > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 12:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Funny thing: Claude—that 100% created that PR in minutes after my two >> prompts (add it, add the docs) even refused to create the label (just >> explained it to me how to do it) - because we ask it in the AGENTS.md to >> never push things upstream. Good bot, nice bot. Listens to what we ask it >> to do. >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 12:07 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> And of course label created. TIL: >>> >>> > gh label create "skip newsfragment check" --repo apache/airflow >>> --description "Skip the newsfragment PR number check" --color "ededed" >>> ✓ Label "skip newsfragment check" created in apache/airflow >>> >>> J. >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 12:04 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/63983 -> adds skipping, updates >>>> docs and informs the author that they can skip the check by setting the >>>> label. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 11:37 AM Wei Lee <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> > I think there are a lot of nuances between "remove" and "leave"—and >>>>> that >>>>> is a good example of that. >>>>> >>>>> I feel changing is more toward the "leave" decision 🤔, but yep, we can >>>>> definitely find some middle ground. Then I'll keep this discussion >>>>> open a >>>>> bit longer and see whether we can have a consensus 🙂 >>>>> >>>>> > We can always follow the procedure we use for > all checks: require >>>>> the >>>>> "skip >>>>> > newsfragment check" label to be set. We can just follow what we do >>>>> in 10 >>>>> > other similar cases. >>>>> >>>>> Yep, sounds good 👍 I can work on that next week. But if anyone’s >>>>> interested in adding it before me. Feel free to do so 🙂 >>>>> >>>>> Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> 於 2026年3月20日週五 下午6:23寫道： >>>>> >>>>> > > A separate but related topic. How should we do if we did not add >>>>> the >>>>> > newsfragment back to the time the change was made? If we create a >>>>> follow-up >>>>> > PR for that, then we won't pass the CI check. Or should we just use >>>>> the >>>>> > number of the follow-up PR? >>>>> > >>>>> > We can always follow the procedure we use for all checks: require >>>>> the "skip >>>>> > newsfragment check" label to be set. We can just follow what we do >>>>> in 10 >>>>> > other similar cases. >>>>> > >>>>> > J,. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 11:14 AM Wei Lee <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > > A separate but related topic. How should we do if we did not add >>>>> the >>>>> > > newsfragment back to the time the change was made? If we create a >>>>> > follow-up >>>>> > > PR for that, then we won't pass the CI check. Or should we just >>>>> use the >>>>> > > number of the follow-up PR? >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Wei Lee <[email protected]> 於 2026年3月20日週五 下午6:06寫道： >>>>> > > >>>>> > > > It seems we don't have a strong consensus on this issue. If no >>>>> one >>>>> > feels >>>>> > > > strongly about whether we should keep it or remove it, and no >>>>> one can >>>>> > > > propose a compelling argument to persuade the other side, I will >>>>> put >>>>> > this >>>>> > > > matter to a vote. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > I initiated this discussion because it no longer serves my >>>>> original >>>>> > > > purpose. However, I'm okay if it still proves useful. I believe >>>>> this is >>>>> > > > more of a decision for release managers. (I guess these files >>>>> are not >>>>> > > used >>>>> > > > elsewhere?) >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> 於 2026年3月18日週三 上午2:03寫道： >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >> I'd be for removing the checkmark needed at the bottom. In >>>>> recent >>>>> > > releases >>>>> > > >> I did, most of the things were touching more than one anyway >>>>> and what >>>>> > > went >>>>> > > >> on actual release notes had nothing to do with the "type" >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > > >> **Types of change** >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > > >> - [ ] DAG changes >>>>> > > >> - [ ] Config changes >>>>> > > >> - [ ] API changes >>>>> > > >> - [ ] CLI changes >>>>> > > >> - [ ] Behaviour changes >>>>> > > >> - [ ] Plugin changes >>>>> > > >> - [ ] Dependency changes >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > > >> On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 at 09:59, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > > >> > Yeah. The format is cool - we might consider adding or >>>>> removing some >>>>> > > >> > areas - but I think it's a good setup + automation. >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > J. >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 8:24 AM Ephraim Anierobi >>>>> > > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > > >> > > >>>>> > > >> > > I’m on the same page as Wei about removing the format check. >>>>> > > >> > > >>>>> > > >> > > For our uses now, requiring a title and description is >>>>> enough to >>>>> > > >> capture >>>>> > > >> > > significant changes. >>>>> > > >> > > >>>>> > > >> > > - Ephraim >>>>> > > >> > > >>>>> > > >> > > On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 at 08:07, Amogh Desai < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>> > > >> wrote: >>>>> > > >> > > >>>>> > > >> > > > Yes, I still think we should continue using the format. >>>>> > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > Thanks & Regards, >>>>> > > >> > > > Amogh Desai >>>>> > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 11:59 AM Wei Lee < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>> > > >> wrote: >>>>> > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > I think I didn't phrase it very clearly 🤦♂️ What I >>>>> meant is >>>>> > > that >>>>> > > >> > this >>>>> > > >> > > > is >>>>> > > >> > > > > the format check for significant news fragments: >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > **Types of change** >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > - [ ] DAG changes >>>>> > > >> > > > > - [ ] Config changes >>>>> > > >> > > > > - [ ] API changes >>>>> > > >> > > > > - [ ] CLI changes >>>>> > > >> > > > > - [ ] Behaviour changes >>>>> > > >> > > > > - [ ] Plugin changes >>>>> > > >> > > > > - [ ] Dependency changes >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > I also think we should continue to keep significant news >>>>> > > >> fragments — >>>>> > > >> > I >>>>> > > >> > > > > just wanted to confirm that we still want to use this >>>>> format. >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > Best, >>>>> > > >> > > > > Wei >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > > On Mar 17, 2026, at 1:44 PM, Amogh Desai < >>>>> > > [email protected] >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > > > wrote: >>>>> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > > I am in favour of keeping it. It helps in issuing news >>>>> > > fragments >>>>> > > >> > with >>>>> > > >> > > > > > structure. >>>>> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > > Thanks & Regards, >>>>> > > >> > > > > > Amogh Desai >>>>> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 11:11 AM Rahul Vats < >>>>> > > >> > [email protected]> >>>>> > > >> > > > > wrote: >>>>> > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> +1 We should keep significant news fragments. >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> Regards, >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> Rahul Vats >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 at 07:54, Zhe-You(Jason) Liu < >>>>> > > >> > [email protected] >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> wrote: >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> I agree with Jarek and Ferruzzi about keeping the >>>>> > > significant >>>>> > > >> > news >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> fragment. >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> From my perspective, the news fragment serves a >>>>> similar >>>>> > role >>>>> > > >> to >>>>> > > >> > ADRs >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> (Architectural Decision Records), providing an >>>>> explicit >>>>> > way >>>>> > > to >>>>> > > >> > record >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> major >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> discussions and behavior changes. We have ADRs for >>>>> Breeze >>>>> > > >> [1], so >>>>> > > >> > > > > keeping >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> those news fragments as ADR-like records for >>>>> Airflow Core >>>>> > > >> would >>>>> > > >> > be a >>>>> > > >> > > > > nice >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> way to help the repo track its decision history. >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> [1] >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/tree/main/dev/breeze/doc/adr >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> Best, >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> Jason >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 9:12 AM Ferruzzi, Dennis < >>>>> > > >> > > > [email protected]> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> wrote: >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> Personally I like it for major updates and >>>>> features. >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> ________________________________ >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> From: Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 4:00 AM >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> To: [email protected] <[email protected] >>>>> > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] Do we still need the >>>>> > > significant >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> newsfragment >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> check introduced in #44378? >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the >>>>> > > >> > organization. Do >>>>> > > >> > > > > not >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> click links or open attachments unless you can >>>>> confirm >>>>> > the >>>>> > > >> > sender >>>>> > > >> > > > and >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> know >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> the content is safe. >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient >>>>> d’un >>>>> > > >> expéditeur >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> externe. >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce >>>>> jointe >>>>> > > si >>>>> > > >> > vous ne >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> pouvez >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous >>>>> > n’êtes >>>>> > > >> pas >>>>> > > >> > > > certain >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> que >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> le contenu ne présente aucun risque. >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> I think it's still quite useful >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 11:48 AM Wei Lee < >>>>> > > >> [email protected]> >>>>> > > >> > > > wrote: >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> The significant newsfragment check was introduced >>>>> in >>>>> > > #44378 >>>>> > > >> [1] >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> mainly >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> to support the Airflow 2 to 3 migration and track >>>>> > breaking >>>>> > > >> > changes. >>>>> > > >> > > > (I >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> thought we only added significant newsfragments for >>>>> > > breaking >>>>> > > >> > changes >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> back >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> then, but Jed corrected me sometime after that.) >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> Now that Airflow 3 is out, do we still need it? >>>>> Or maybe >>>>> > > we >>>>> > > >> can >>>>> > > >> > > > just >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> remove it. >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> Best, >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> Wei Lee >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/44378 >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>>> > > [email protected] >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: >>>>> > > >> [email protected] >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>>> > [email protected] >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: >>>>> > > [email protected] >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> > > >> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> > > >> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> > > >> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>
